Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2.6 vs 2.7 i7 quad
- Thread starter sk8r1230
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Depends - the main differences in the two CPUs are the base frequency and thus the Max Turbo Frequencies and L3 cache (6 vs 8 KB)
Intel Core i7-3820QM, 2.7 GHz, 8KB L3
Intel Core i7-3720QM 2.6 GHz, 6KB L3
The benchmark differences vary depending upon the test. The 3820 performs about 11.8% better in benchmarks. Your mileage may vary.
It is interesting to note, that Apple is pretty much passing the difference in price between the two CPUs on to customers.
http://tinyurl.com/7mqygdp for processor specs.
http://tinyurl.com/28qgpn for benchmarks
I thought it was interesting as well. After agonising, I did go for the 2.7Ghz. I rather spend a bit extra at the start then, later think, maybe I should have... (especially, if I am waiting for a task to complete). Now I have to eat 2-min noodles for 3 months straight!! : )
Shh! You're dating yourself! It's a 2 MB difference in cache!
Doh! I gray corrected.
This is the same as last year's 2.2 vs 2.3 and then 2.4 vs 2.5 debate. Difference is 100 MHz per core and 2MB of cache. Difference is $250.
I sprang for it because of my policy: If it ain't worth maxing out, it ain't worth buying.
It's rare for me to compromise on computer specs. I like having the highest config, it keeps my ego satisfied, works faster in some key tasks, and I don't have this thing nagging me (you should've got the better one...). $250 is a weekend softball tournament's worth of games to officiate. No biggie...
I sprang for it because of my policy: If it ain't worth maxing out, it ain't worth buying.
It's rare for me to compromise on computer specs. I like having the highest config, it keeps my ego satisfied, works faster in some key tasks, and I don't have this thing nagging me (you should've got the better one...). $250 is a weekend softball tournament's worth of games to officiate. No biggie...
I've thought about the difference between the three processor options in the new 15" MacBook Pros a lot and here's what I've come up with:
Here's how you calculate the processor's calculations per second (in millions):
2.3 GHz x 4 = 9.2
2.6 GHz x 4 = 10.4
2.7 GHz x 4 = 10.8
Now, you can calculate the processing difference between these three:
2.3 GHz is 11.5% slower than 2.6 GHz and 14.8% slower than 2.7 GHz
2.6 GHz is 11.5% faster than 2.3 GHz and 3.7% slower than 2.7 GHz
2.7 GHz is 14.8% faster than 2.3 GHz and 3.7% faster than 2.6 GHz
Example: 9.2/10.4 = 0.885 > move the decimal 88.5 > 100-88.5 = 11.5.
These calculations can be confirmed by Geekbench results for the Retina MacBook Pro (http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks) which show the 2.3 GHz model at 11680, the 2.6 GHz model at 13045, and the 2.7 GHz model at 13429. If you look at the percent difference between these benchmarks, they are almost identical to the above calculations.
So, what is the value of a processor upgrade in the new MacBook Pros? Well, there's a significant difference between the 2.3 GHz model and the two higher-end options. The 2.6 GHz model is only a few percentage points slower than the 2.7 GHz model, however the L3 cache in the 2.7 GHz model is 2 MB larger than in the other two models.
It's up to the user to determine which processor they believe best suits their needs. For most simple tasks the difference between each model won't be noticeable. For tasks that are very processor intensive, the difference will be more noticeable.
Here's how you calculate the processor's calculations per second (in millions):
2.3 GHz x 4 = 9.2
2.6 GHz x 4 = 10.4
2.7 GHz x 4 = 10.8
Now, you can calculate the processing difference between these three:
2.3 GHz is 11.5% slower than 2.6 GHz and 14.8% slower than 2.7 GHz
2.6 GHz is 11.5% faster than 2.3 GHz and 3.7% slower than 2.7 GHz
2.7 GHz is 14.8% faster than 2.3 GHz and 3.7% faster than 2.6 GHz
Example: 9.2/10.4 = 0.885 > move the decimal 88.5 > 100-88.5 = 11.5.
These calculations can be confirmed by Geekbench results for the Retina MacBook Pro (http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks) which show the 2.3 GHz model at 11680, the 2.6 GHz model at 13045, and the 2.7 GHz model at 13429. If you look at the percent difference between these benchmarks, they are almost identical to the above calculations.
So, what is the value of a processor upgrade in the new MacBook Pros? Well, there's a significant difference between the 2.3 GHz model and the two higher-end options. The 2.6 GHz model is only a few percentage points slower than the 2.7 GHz model, however the L3 cache in the 2.7 GHz model is 2 MB larger than in the other two models.
It's up to the user to determine which processor they believe best suits their needs. For most simple tasks the difference between each model won't be noticeable. For tasks that are very processor intensive, the difference will be more noticeable.
I pulled the trigger at 2.6ghz 512ssd 16 gb ..... Now wondering if I should had just max out the processor as well. Theory wise it 2mb cache and 100mhz more.... Any one knows how much different or how many programmes do I have to run at the same time to actually feel the differenceS ?
I'm wondering if i should call them to replace it to the higher end
I'm wondering if i should call them to replace it to the higher end
How much difference in games like Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3 would you notice between the 2.6 and 2.7? None or a bit?
Are you sure the rMBP 2.7Ghz come with 8MB cache ?
The new mobile powerhouse.
This notebook has the power to do amazing things. Third-generation Intel Core i7 Ivy Bridge processors with a state-of-the-art 22-nanometer single-die microarchitecture provide the fastest quad-core performance ever in a notebook. Hyper-Threading technology allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core. And with speeds up to 2.7GHz, 6MB of shared L3 cache, and Turbo Boost speeds up to 3.7GHz, these processors are great for running professional applications like Aperture and Final Cut Pro. They also support up to 16GB of superfast 1600MHz memory. Which means the all-new MacBook Pro is ready to take on whatever you can dream up.
http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/features/
The new mobile powerhouse.
This notebook has the power to do amazing things. Third-generation Intel Core i7 Ivy Bridge processors with a state-of-the-art 22-nanometer single-die microarchitecture provide the fastest quad-core performance ever in a notebook. Hyper-Threading technology allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core. And with speeds up to 2.7GHz, 6MB of shared L3 cache, and Turbo Boost speeds up to 3.7GHz, these processors are great for running professional applications like Aperture and Final Cut Pro. They also support up to 16GB of superfast 1600MHz memory. Which means the all-new MacBook Pro is ready to take on whatever you can dream up.
http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/features/
Yes, the 2.7 GHz i7 has 8 MB of L3 cache. Take a look at the spec sheet on this page: http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_pro/select
Good choice. I push the new machine you see in my signature with heavy video editing and every little bit helps. Enjoy your new machine!
Yes but not games like Starcraft 2, and I imagine Diablo 3? they have lots of enemies with AI etc that uses the CPU on screen or in the game at once. Hence the question about those games in particular.
Never be on the top of the performance curve, behind a couple of steps is the best ROI or bang for the buck.
Hmm, well the machine I would get with my discount is the 2.6 with 512GB SSD and 16GB Ram.
It costs me £2263.20 UK or $3556.23 US. The 2.7CPU bump costs me £220.80 UK or $346.94.
I didn't really look at this cost before, but to me it does look expensive even with my discount. 400mhz and 2mb cache, not sure it's worth half the cost of an iPhone?
If you want the upgrade at the normal retail non discount price Apple charge you £240 UK or $377.09 US. Is it worth it? I'm not so sure. And I THINK I am right in saying this is more expensive then the top CPU option I paid for in my current 2010 MacBook Pro?
It costs me £2263.20 UK or $3556.23 US. The 2.7CPU bump costs me £220.80 UK or $346.94.
I didn't really look at this cost before, but to me it does look expensive even with my discount. 400mhz and 2mb cache, not sure it's worth half the cost of an iPhone?
If you want the upgrade at the normal retail non discount price Apple charge you £240 UK or $377.09 US. Is it worth it? I'm not so sure. And I THINK I am right in saying this is more expensive then the top CPU option I paid for in my current 2010 MacBook Pro?
No, it's an extra 2MB cache memory and 100MHz PER CORE so it's 400MHz. Still , does seem overpriced.
No both are Ivy Bridge, you can always tell by the Intel 4000 series onboard gpu. If that is present! its Ivy Bridge
If you think that's bad, look at the pricing when you go from 2.7 (top of the line QM, 45W TDP) to 2.9 (XM, 55W TDP).